POLICY PERSPECTIVE

Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity?

Lian Pin Koh1 & David S. Wilcove1,2
1
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, 106A Guyot Hall, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
2
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

Keywords
Biodiesel; biodiversity hotspot; biofuel;
deforestation; habitat loss.
Correspondence
Lian Pin Koh, ETH Zürich, Ecosystem
Management, CHN G74.2, Universitatstrasse
16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel: +41 (0) 44
632 8630; fax: +41 (0) 44 632 1575. E-mail:
email@lianpinkoh.com
Received: 2 March 2008; accepted 5 March
2008
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00011.x
Abstract
Oil palm is one of the world’s most rapidly expanding equatorial crops. The
two largest oil palm-producing countries—Indonesia and Malaysia—are lo-
cated in Southeast Asia, a region with numerous endemic, forest-dwelling
species. Oil palm producers have asserted that forests are not being cleared to
grow oil palm. Our analysis of land-cover data compiled by the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization suggests that during the period 1990–2005,
55%–59% of oil palm expansion in Malaysia, and at least 56% of that in In-
donesia occurred at the expense of forests. Using data on bird and butterfly
diversity in Malaysia’s forests and croplands, we argue that conversion of ei-
ther primary or secondary (logged) forests to oil palm may result in signifi-
cant biodiversity losses, whereas conversion of pre-existing cropland (rubber)
to oil palm results in fewer losses. To safeguard the biodiversity in oil palm-
producing countries, more fine-scale and spatially explicit data on land-use
change need to be collected and analyzed to determine the extent and nature
of any further conversion of forests to oil palm; secondary forests should be
protected against conversion to oil palm; and any future expansion of oil palm
agriculture should be restricted to pre-existing cropland or degraded habitats.

tropical forests and biodiversity in the region are a ma-

Introduction
Over the next 50 years, rapid and widespread agricultural
expansion will pose a serious threat to natural ecosys-
tems worldwide (Tilman et al. 2001). During the past
few decades, the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) has become
one of the most rapidly expanding equatorial crops in
the world. The global extent of oil palm cultivation in-
creased from 3.6 million ha in 1961 to 13.2 million ha in
2006 (FAO 2007). Today, oil palm is grown in 43 coun-
tries with a total cultivated area accounting for nearly
one-tenth of the world’s permanent cropland (Figure 1;
FAO 2007; WRI 2007). The two largest oil palm-
producing countries—Indonesia (4.1 million ha) and
Malaysia (3.6 million ha)—are located in Southeast Asia
(FAO 2007). Coincidentally, this region also contains
11% of the world’s remaining tropical forests (Iremon-
ger et al. 1997), and harbors numerous endemic or rare
species, many of which are restricted to forest habitats
(Mittermeier et al. 2004; Sodhi et al. 2004; Koh 2007).
As such, the potential impacts of oil palm expansion on
jor conservation concern (Koh & Wilcove 2007; Scharle-
mann & Laurance 2008). The European Commission,
whose member nations import palm oil as a biofuel feed-
stock, is drafting a law to ban the import of fuel crops
grown on certain kinds of land, including tropical forests
(Kanter 2008). To address growing concerns from Euro-
pean government agencies, environmentalists and con-
sumers of oil palm products, the oil palm industry in
Southeast Asia has argued both that oil palm plantations
are beneficial to biodiversity (MPOC 2008a), and that ex-
pansion of oil palm cultivation has not come at the ex-
pense of forests (MPOC 2008b).
In this article, we use national land-use data com-
piled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) to determine what types of land
have been converted to oil palm in Malaysia and In-
donesia. We then present a framework for assessing the
impact of oil palm agriculture on biodiversity by deter-
mining the relative impacts to biodiversity of convert-
ing different land uses to oil palm. While it has generally

Conservation Letters xx (2008) 1–5 

c 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 1
Oil palm agriculture and tropical biodiversity
Figure 1 Map showing the extent of oil palm cultivation in 43 oil palm-producing countries in 2006 (FAO 2007).
been acknowledged that oil palm plantations in Malaysia
and Indonesia have been created from pre-existing crop-
land (e.g., rubber) and forests (Casson 2000; Corley &
Tinker 2003), the relative contributions of these two land
uses to oil palm expansion have not been investigated.
Furthermore, logged-over forests often are regarded by
governments as degraded habitats and allowed to be
cleared for agriculture. This has encouraged the conver-
sion of secondary (logged) forests to oil palm plantations
in Malaysia and Indonesia (Casson 2000; McMorrow &
Talip 2001). As such, from both the policy and scientific
perspectives, the relative biodiversity values of primary
forests, secondary forests, pre-existing cropland, and oil
palm plantations must be assessed to evaluate the impact
of changes in land use.
We based our analysis on national statistics of crop-
land area (FAO 2007) and forest area (FAO 2006) com-
piled and published by the FAO. A major shortcoming of
the FAO forest area data is that no independent remote-
sensing survey was carried out to validate the data at
the time they were compiled (FAO 2006). Neverthe-
less, a recent study has shown that these FAO statis-
tics for Malaysia and Indonesia correspond well to es-
timates of cropland and forest areas generated from a
remote-sensing analysis using Landsat TM satellite im-
agery (Stibig et al. 2007). FAO and Landsat-based esti-
mates for Malaysia’s total forest area in 2000 differed by
only 46,000 ha (0.2%). Although the FAO gathered these
forest area data through fully referenced country reports,
which underwent detailed reviews to ensure complete-
ness and correct application of definitions and methods,
2 Conservation Letters xx (2008) 1–5 
L.P. Koh & D.S. Wilcove
the fact that these data were self-reported make them
liable to potential biases. If, for example, countries are
under-reporting forest losses to the FAO, our analysis
may underestimate the extent to which forests are being
cleared to grow oil palm.
During the period 1990–2005, oil palm in Malaysia
expanded by a total of 1,874,000 ha (FAO 2007). To
estimate the minimum and maximum areas of pre-
existing cropland and forests that were converted to
oil palm plantations, we considered two scenarios. Un-
der the first scenario, the aggregate decrease in area
of all commercial crops that declined in cultivated
area between 1990 and 2005 was taken to be the
maximum cropland area converted to oil palm plan-
tations (834,000 ha; FAO 2007; see supplementary
material); this accounted for only 45% of oil palm ex-
pansion during this period. The remaining unaccounted
increase in oil palm-cultivated area (1,040,000 ha; 55%)
was taken to be the minimum forest area converted to
oil palm plantations. Under the second scenario, the to-
tal decline in forest area (including primary, secondary,
and plantation forests; but excluding rubber plantations)
in Malaysia during the period 1990–2005 was taken to
be the maximum forest area converted to oil palm plan-
tations (1,109,000 ha; FAO 2006), which accounted for
59% of oil palm expansion. The remaining unaccounted
increase in oil palm-cultivated area (765,000 ha; 41%)
was taken to be the minimum cropland area converted
to oil palm agriculture. As such, our analysis indicates
that during the period 1990–2005, between 55% and
59% of oil palm expansion in Malaysia can be attributed
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
L.P. Koh & D.S. Wilcove
Figure 2 Total number of species of forest birds
(dark grey bars) and forest butterflies (light grey
bars) recorded from different land-use types in
southern Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo,
respectively (Hamer et al. 2003; Dumbrell & Hill
2005; Peh et al. 2005, 2006; L. P. Koh, unpublished
work; see supplementary material). Forest birds
and butterflies are species that depend extensively
or exclusively on lowland evergreen rainforests.
to conversion of forests, and between 41% and 45% of
oil palm expansion was likely due to conversion from
pre-existing cropland (including rubber plantations). Al-
though Malaysia reported no loss of primary forests dur-
ing this period (FAO 2006), substantial amounts of sec-
ondary or plantation forests likely were converted to oil
palm plantations.
A similar analysis was conducted for Indonesia. Be-
tween 1990 and 2005, oil palm-cultivated area in In-
donesia increased by 3,017,000 ha (FAO 2007). The max-
imum cropland area converted to oil palm plantations
(aggregate decrease in area of all declining commercial
crops) was estimated to be 1,313,000 ha (FAO 2007),
which accounted for 44% of oil palm expansion in the
country. The minimum forest area converted to oil palm
plantations (remaining unaccounted increase in oil palm-
cultivated area) was estimated to be 1,704,000 ha, which
represented 56% of oil palm expansion. During this pe-
riod, the total forest area in Indonesia decreased by
28,072,000 ha (FAO 2006), which was larger than the
total extent of oil palm expansion. Therefore, the max-
imum forest area converted to oil palm plantations was
taken to be 100% of the extent of oil palm expansion.
Our analysis suggests that during the period 1990–2005,
at least 56% of oil palm expansion in Indonesia may be
attributed to the conversion of primary, secondary, or
plantation forests.
One caveat of our analysis is that oil palm plantations
could have been created from land devoted to uses other
than forest or cropland (e.g., grassland or urban area)
(FAO 2006). However, because these unclassified land-
uses (grouped under category of “Other land”; FAO 2006)
represent less than one-fifth of the total land area in both
Conservation Letters xx (2008) 1–5 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
Oil palm agriculture and tropical biodiversity
Malaysia and Indonesia (FAO 2006, 2007; WRI 2007),
they do not detract from the main conclusions of our
study.
Our analysis indicates that oil palm plantations in
Malaysia and Indonesia have replaced forests and, to a
lesser extent, pre-existing cropland. The remaining crit-
ical question is whether these conversions are likely to
have had a significant impact on the region’s biodiver-
sity. We investigate this question using existing data for
birds and butterflies. Recently, Peh et al. (2005, 2006)
conducted a comparative study of the relative conserva-
tion values of different land uses in southern Peninsular
Malaysia for forest birds (i.e., species that depend exten-
sively or exclusively on lowland evergreen rainforests).
They sampled the species richness of forest birds in pri-
mary forests, secondary (logged) forests, rubber plan-
tations, and oil palm plantations by performing a to-
tal of 720 point count surveys over a 5-month period.
The data they collected indicate that 30 years after se-
lective logging, forests can recover 84% of their original
forest bird community (Figure 2; see supplementary ma-
terial). More importantly, their study reveals that the
conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil
palm plantations decreases the species richness of forest
birds by 77% and 73%, respectively, whereas the con-
version of rubber plantations to oil palm plantations re-
sults in only a 14% decline in species richness of the
remaining forest birds. Similar patterns hold for forest
butterflies in Borneo. Hamer et al. (2003) and Dumb-
rell & Hill (2005) sampled forest butterflies in primary
forests and logged forests in the Danum Valley Field Cen-
tre and the Ulu Segama Forest Reserve in Sabah, using
banana-baited traps. Using the same trapping method, we
3
Oil palm agriculture and tropical biodiversity
sampled butterflies from 98 sites in two oil palm com-
plexes in Sabah in 2006 (L. P. Koh, unpublished work;
see supplementary material). We used data from these
three studies and compared the species richness of for-
est butterflies among primary forests, logged forests, and
oil palm plantations. Our analysis suggests that the con-
version of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm
plantations decreases species richness of forest butterflies
by 83% and 79%, respectively (Figure 2). Further studies
of other groups of species clearly are needed to assess fully
the biodiversity impacts of oil palm agriculture compared
to other land uses in Southeast Asia. In particular, more
empirical research is needed to quantify the biodiversity
value of oil palm plantations relative to primary and sec-
ondary forests, as has been conducted in other tropical
regions (e.g., Barlow et al. 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Gardner
et al. 2007). Nevertheless, our findings strongly suggest
that the conversion of either primary forests or secondary
forests to oil palm plantations has detrimental impacts on
Southeast Asia’s biodiversity.
Policy recommendations
Southeast Asia has the highest relative rate of deforesta-
tion in the humid tropics (Achard et al. 2002). If present
levels of deforestation were to continue unabated, the re-
gion could lose up to three-quarters of its original for-
est cover by 2100 which, according to recent studies,
could lead to the loss of 13%–42% of regional popula-
tions of all species, at least half of which would repre-
sent global species extinctions (Brook et al. 2003, 2006;
Sodhi et al. 2004). International demand for oil palm
products will likely continue to drive expansion of oil
palm agriculture in Southeast Asia and exacerbate the
rates of forest loss and degradation in the region. We
highlight weaknesses in land management research that
need to be addressed to safeguard the biodiversity in
oil palm-producing countries and propose several policy
recommendations: (1) more fine-scale and spatially ex-
plicit data on land-use change need to be collected and
analyzed by governments, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, and independent scientists to identify accurately
the extent and nature of any future conversions of forests
(primary and secondary) to oil palm and other agricul-
tural uses; (2) secondary (logged) forests should also be
protected against conversion to agricultural uses such as
rubber plantations and oil palm plantations. The notion
that such forests are unimportant for biodiversity is con-
tradicted by the data on birds and butterflies; (3) to gauge
more precisely the importance of secondary forests rela-
tive to primary forests, rubber plantations and other crop-
lands, it would be useful to have similar survey data for
4 Conservation Letters xx (2008) 1–5 
L.P. Koh & D.S. Wilcove
other taxa; and (4) ideally, any future expansion of oil
palm agriculture should be restricted to pre-existing crop-
land or other degraded habitats (e.g., nonnatural grass-
lands). Given the powerful economic and social forces
that are driving the expansion of the oil palm business,
implementing these steps will not be easy, but they are
likely to be essential to the long-term conservation of this
region’s unique flora and fauna.
Supplementary Material
The following supplementary material is available for this
article:
Appendix S1: Changes in area of all major commer-
cial crops cultivated in Malaysia between 1990 and 2005
(FAO 2007).
Appendix S2: Changes in area of all major commer-
cial crops cultivated in Indonesia between 1990 and 2005
(FAO 2007).
Appendix S3: Species list of forest birds recorded from
primary forests, logged forests, rubber plantations and oil
palm plantations in southern Peninsular Malaysia by Peh
et al. (2005, 2006).
Appendix S4: Species list of forest butterflies recorded
from primary forests, logged forests and oil palm planta-
tions in Borneo by Hamer et al. (2003), Dumbrell & Hill
(2005) and L.P. Koh (unpublished)
This material is available as part of the online article
from:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.
1755-263X.2008.00011.x
(This link will take you to the article abstract).
Please note: Blackwell Publishing are not responsible
for the content or functionality of any supplementary
materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other
than missing material) should be directed to the corre-
sponding author for the article.
References
Achard, F., Eva H.D., Stibig H.-J. et al. (2002) Determination
of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests.
Science 297, 999–1002.
Barlow, J., Gardner T.A., Araujo I.S. et al. (2007a)
Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary,
secondary and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
104, 18555–18560.
Barlow, J., Mestre L.A.M., Gardner T.A., Peres C.A. (2007b)
The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for
Amazonian birds. Biol Conserv 136, 212–231.
Barlow, J., Overal W.L., Araujo I.S., Gardner T.A., Peres C.A.
(2007c) The value of primary, secondary and plantation
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
L.P. Koh & D.S. Wilcove
forests for fruit-feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon.
J Appl Ecol 44, 1001–1012.
Brook, B.W., Sodhi N.S., Ng P.K.L. (2003) Catastrophic
extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424,
420–423.
Brook, B.W., Bradshaw C.J.A., Koh L.P., Sodhi N.S. (2006)
Momentum drives the crash: mass extinction in the tropics.
Biotropica 38, 302–305.
Casson, A. (2000) The Hesitant Boom: Indonesia’s oil palm
sub-sector in an era of economic crisis and political change.
CIFOR Program on the Underlying Causes of Deforestation.
Available from: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/
pdf˙files/CASSON.pdf (accessed October 2007). Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Corley, R.H.V., Tinker P.B. (2003) The oil palm. 4th edition.
Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.
Dumbrell, A.J., Hill J.K. (2005) Impacts of selective logging on
canopy and ground assemblages of tropical forest
butterflies: implications for sampling. Biol Conserv 125,
123–131.
FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005: progress
towards sustainable forest management. Forestry Paper 147.
Available from: http://www.fao.org (accessed October
2007). United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), Rome.
FAO (2007) FAOSTAT Online Statistical Service. Available
from: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed October 2007).
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
Rome.
Gardner, T.A., Ribeiro-Júnior M.A., Barlow J., Ávila-Pires
T.C.S., Hoogmoed M.S., Peres C.A. (2007) The value of
primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a neotropical
herpetofauna. Conserv Biol 21, 775–787.
Hamer, K.C., Hill J.K., Benedick S. et al. (2003) Ecology of
butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of
northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity.
J Appl Ecol 40, 150–162.
Iremonger, S., Ravilious C., Quiton T. (1997) A global
overview of forest conservation CD-ROM. Center for
International Forestry Research and World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (CIFOR-WCMC),
Cambridge.
Kanter, J. (2008) Europe may ban imports of some biofuel
crops. The New York Times (15 January 2008).
Koh, L.P. (2007) Potential habitat and biodiversity losses from
Conservation Letters xx (2008) 1–5 
c 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
Oil palm agriculture and tropical biodiversity
intensified biodiesel feedstock production. Conserv Bio 21,
1373–1375.
Koh, L.P., Wilcove D.S. (2007) Cashing in palm oil for
conservation. Nature 448, 993–994.
McMorrow, J., Talip M.A. (2001) Decline of forest area in
Sabah, Malaysia: relationship to state policies, land code
and land capability. Global Environ Chang 11,
217–230.
Mittermeier, R.A., Gil P.R., Hoffman M. et al. (2004) Hotspots
revisited. Cemex, Conservation International and Agrupacion
Sierra Madre, Monterrey, Mexico.
MPOC (2008a) Palm oil and the environment. Available
from: http://www.mpoc.org.my/main˙palmoil˙04.asp
(accessed January 2008). Malaysian Palm Oil Council
(MPOC), Kuala Lumpur.
MPOC (2008b) Oil palm – tree of life. Available from
http://www.mpoc.org.my/envo˙pub˙120207˙01.asp
(accessed January 2008). Malaysian Palm Oil Council
(MPOC), Kuala Lumpur.
Peh, K.S.-H., de Jong J., Sodhi N.S., Lim S.L.-H., Yap C.A.-M.
(2005) Lowland rainforest avifauna and human
disturbance: persistence of primary forest birds in
selectively logged forests and mixed-rural habitats of
southern Peninsular Malaysia. Biol Conserv 123, 489–505.
Peh, K.S.-H., Sodhi N.S., de Jong J., Sekercioglu C.H., Yap
C.A.-M., Lim S.L.-H. (2006) Conservation value of
degraded habitats for forest birds in southern Peninsular
Malaysia. Divers Distrib 12, 572–581.
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Laurance W.F. (2008) How green are
biofuels? Science 319, 43–44.
Sodhi, N.S., Koh L.P., Brook B.W., Ng P.K.L. (2004)
Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends
Ecol Evol 19, 654–660.
Stibig, H.-J., Belward A.S., Roy P.S. et al. (2007) A land-cover
map for South and Southeast Asia derived from
SPOT-VEGETATION data. J Biogeogr 34, 625–637.
Tilman, D., Fargione J. Wolff B. et al. (2001) Forecasting
agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science
292, 281–284.
WRI (2007) EarthTrends: environmental information.
Available from: http://earthtrends.wri.org (accessed
October 2007). World Resources Institute (WRI),
Washington. D.C.
Editor: Dr. Corey Bradshaw
5